Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 12, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In New York, the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed the refusal of the trial court to dismiss a lawsuit against school officials “regarding their failure to prepare an individual safety plan” for a special needs student who was “repeatedly harassed and assaulted by his classmates.”  The lower court and the appellate court characterized the dispute as “a case of harassment and assault.”  To summarize, “the victim was bullied by his fellow students throughout the 2017–2018 school year, while a student at a public middle school… as a result of these incidents, (the student) suffered injuries to both of his eyes, his head, his face, and his teeth.”  The parent “filed a notice of claim encompassing all of these incidents… alleging, inter alia, negligent supervision.”  The courts held that summary judgment was inappropriate because schools can be “held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision.”  The rule of law is that “schools are obligated to provide students with a safe place to acquire an education. Children, on a daily basis, leave the safety of their homes to attend school, where their parents expect that they will be provided a safe place to grow and learn. While they have physical custody of these children, schools are said to act “in loco parentis,” or in place of the parents, and in that role are required to provide the same protection and care for a child that a parent would provide.”  Along-side this rule is a doctrine to encourage litigation of lawsuits involving allegations of a continuing pattern of harassment in schools, called the “continuing wrong doctrine.”  According to this doctrine the usual time requirements for filing a lawsuit to notify school officials of a claim will not apply because in cases “arising out of repeated harassment and assault of student by his classmates…the faculty and administration of the school (are already) on notice.”  Therefore, in this case, “the time period for (a) student and his mother to file notice of claim regarding all of the incidents began to run when last incident occurred.”  Dismissal of the case through traditional judicial deference to the school officials was declined because “there is no indication in the record that any plan was devised for (the student’s) safety… and the “adequacy of a school’s supervision of its students is generally left to the (jury).”  J.A. v. City of New York

— In Colorado, “all 179 Colorado school districts must adopt a cellphone use policy by July 1, 2026 under a new state law.”  So far, “the state’s largest school district, Denver Public Schools just announced a bell-to-bell ban for cellphones and other wireless devices.”  One survey disclosed that “one of the most common objections was the fear that banning phones would cut off communication during a crisis.”

— In New York, a campus safety audit by the State Comptroller found “deficiencies in building access” policies in the Eldred Central School District that “could compromise the safety and security of students, staff, and visitors.”  The school district is located in Sullivan County, New York, with a small portion extending into northern Orange County.  According to the audit, school officials  “did not properly manage and monitor building access,”  including “accounts and devices (for persons who were longer authorized but) that still had assigned access badges in the district’s system.”

— In New Hampshire, the state is implementing a program designed to give police, firefighters and EMS personnel “a digital map of every school.”  The goal is to help first responders to “respond more quickly and effectively during school emergencies.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 8, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court which held that a school administrator’s search of the backpack of a student in response to a tip from Colorado’s Safe2Tell program was illegal.  “Through Colorado’s Safe2Tell program, (the) Assistant Principal … received an anonymous tip that described a student named “T.J.” smoking marijuana in a teacher’s sixth period biology class at approximately 12:30 p.m.  (The administrator) searched T.J.W.’s backpack and found a marijuana vape pen.  (The student was charged) with marijuana possession.  (The student) filed a motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana vape pen, which the district court granted, finding that (the) search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment.”  The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the ruling, upholding the search.  The main issue of the appeal was “whether (the administrator), in light of the Safe2Tell tip and his own investigation, had reasonable suspicion to search (the student’s) backpack.  Applying the rule of law from the case of  New Jersey v. T.L.O., the appellate court held that “a school search is only reasonable if it is (1) “justified at its inception,” and (2) “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.””  As to the Safe2Tell tip, the appellate court held that “the information in the tip here was fresh, as (the administrator) received it only forty-five minutes after the alleged events occurred.”  As to the response by the school administrator, the court ruled that “any kind of corroboration of the information in the tip, whether of criminal conduct or otherwise, can bolster the reliability of an anonymous tip because it allows (the administrator) to confirm a tipster’s basis of knowledge and veracity.”  Therefore, “the search of (the student’s) backpack was “justified at its inception” because the anonymous Safe2Tell tip, combined with (the administrator’s) independent corroboration, supported a finding of reasonable suspicion.”  “To reiterate, the Safe2Tell report at issue here was fresh, received only forty-five minutes after the alleged events, and provided detailed information into the suspect’s identity and whereabouts during the time of the alleged criminal activity, much of which (the administrator) corroborated before he conducted the search.”  People In Int. of T.J.W.

— In Pennsylvania, private schools across the state are receiving grants for school safety.  “The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency recently approved the 2025-26 Targeted School Safety Grants for Nonpublic Schools.”  Policy makers say that “the program allows schools to address school violence, bolster security, and support student mental health.”

— In Florida, “the Florida Department of Education is directing school districts to add artificial intelligence use to their internet safety policies.”  “The rule development workshop will be held June 22.”

— In California, “a majority of Pajaro Middle School teachers say they have no confidence in (the) Principal,,.. alleging she failed to keep the school safe by not following safety and disciplinary protocols.”  “Staff had grown increasingly concerned with a lack of a safe learning environment for students where there weren’t appropriate consequences for things like fights on campus.” “Instead just solely relying on things like community circles or restorative practices without following through on actual discipline.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 29, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In New York, the Supreme Court (the trial court in New York), held that educators have “ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property.”  The litigation arose out a dispute over access by a person responsible for an after-school program held on school grounds.  As the relationship between the person and educators began to dissolve, including an incident in which the person “left the school grounds after being issued trespass papers,” educators sent a letter advising the person that “he was prohibited from entering upon any (school district) property without express prior written consent from the office of (the Superintendent).”  The court upheld the decision by the school district.  Applying clearly established law, the court ruled that “an unfettered right to access school grounds does not exist.”  First, the court held that “a school has a duty to ensure the safety of its students in its physical custody or orbit of authority.”  Second, “there is a long-standing judicial deference afforded local school boards to exercise ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property.”  Third, the test for examining the use of this authority is based upon the status of public schools as “a nonpublic forum (in which) the administrations thereof may therefore control access to the School based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.”  The court cited the record to rule that “here, District Respondents implemented a requirement that petitioner must request written permission from Respondent Superintendent at least 72 hours in advance of entering school property based upon two documented confrontations.”  Therefore, the school district “rationally determined that the school district’s decision to require that petitioner obtain written permission from its superintendent before he can enter school grounds, particularly where the restriction is subject to annual review at petitioner’s request, is entirely appropriate under the circumstances.”  Wagner v. Rosa

— In Virginia, officials in the Newport News Public Schools are implementing safety upgrades to their campuses.  The upgrades “include weapon detection systems, clear backpack requirements, expanded security staffing, and stricter visitor access procedures.”  The new policies are viewed as a response to a “ 2024 grand jury report (that) found multiple safety concerns and administrative failures leading up to (a) shooting, in which first-grade teacher Abby Zwerner was shot by a 6-year-old student who brought a gun to school.

— In Missouri, the legislature is considering adding armed “Missouri Rangers” to school campuses to enhance student safety.  House Bill 905 would “allow schools to hire volunteer or paid guards called “Missouri Rangers” who could carry a gun on school grounds.”  The legislation “proposes a maximum of 160 hours of training, specifying that the program must include lessons on “close quarter combat,” bomb and arson training, de-escalation among others.”

— In Delaware, the legislature is recommending a policy “that would allow trained and authorized employees to carry guns on private school property.”  Senate Bill 304 “would create an exemption within Delaware’s Safe School Zone law to allow designated “sentries” to carry a gun or projectile weapon on private school campuses under strict training and oversight requirements.”  Each person “would have to be employees of the private school and hold a valid concealed carry permit or qualifying law enforcement credentials.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 27, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Texas, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that suppressed a class room audio recording of illegal conduct by a school resource officer.  The SRO “was on duty at (the) Middle School when he and (the) vice principal … ordered students out of a classroom to search for suspected contraband, a vape pen, in the students’ belongings.  A student left behind her cellphone with the recording function turned on, capturing audio of (their) conversation during the search.  The recording (indicated they) located the vape pen in a cabinet and discussed placing it in a particular student’s backpack without evidence of whom it belonged to.”   The SRO was arrested for “intentionally subjecting three students to searches he knew were unlawful and for planting evidence.”  The officer filed a motion to suppress the audio recording, “arguing that it was obtained in violation of (the state wiretap statute) and his constitutional rights because neither (the SRO nor the school administrator) consented to being recorded by a third party.”  The trial court suppressed the audio recording.  The appellate court reversed.  The reversal was based on clearly established law that the SRO has a “diminished expectation of privacy … because (they occupy) a position of public trust and exercises special powers.”  The appellate court went on the state that, “the audio recording was made by a student who was a private citizen.  There is no allegation that this student was acting on behalf of law enforcement or doing anything other than acting in a private capacity.  Accordingly, (the SRO’s) Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.”  The resolution of the Fourth Amendment defense also resolved the statutory argument of the SRO because the wiretap statute “incorporates the Fourth Amendment’s legitimate-expectation-of-privacy standard.”  The case was remanded back to trial.  State v. Gonzalez

— In Kentucky, officials in the Bullitt County Public Schools are creating an in-house school police department.  They are hiring a chief of police to command the school resource officers currently deployed to its schools.  The goal is to tailor (the SRO job) to a specific type of officer … looking for the opportunity to be in schools, build relationships with students and help us make sure that we’re keeping our students and community safe.”

— In Georgia, the “Barrow County Sheriff’s Office, Board of Commissioners and Board of Education reached a new agreement for security services for the school district.  Additional school resource officers will be deployed, from 12 to 25.  The agreement also “more clearly outlines each of the three parties’ responsibilities.”

— In Texas, the “Texas Education Agency released its annual audit report on school safety and security in Texas…Around 90% of the school districts and campuses in Texas had no issues with the initial phases of security preparedness, according to the report.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 19, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Louisiana, the United States Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling against a school resource officer who assisted school officials in “removing (a) mother from school office.”  In a case involving suspected child endangerment, social workers “contacted the high school and ordered the school not to release the girl to the (parents’) custody.  The school then began locking all exterior school doors to prevent the (parents) entry.  The school also contacted (the school resource officer) and asked him to report to the school’s front office.  The school informed (the SRO) that it had been instructed not to release the girl to the (parents), and that an agent of the Department was on his way to the school.”  Once at the school the mother “became angry and used profanity.  The school secretary warned (her) that she would have to leave the office if she continued to use profanity.  Shortly afterward, (the mother) stepped partially outside the office to talk to her husband. She then re-entered the office.  Following (her) exchange with her husband, (the SRO) asked (the mother) to step outside the office.  But (she) refused to leave without her daughter.  Surveillance footage depicts her gesturing angrily while speaking to (the SRO).  (The SRO) grasped (her) arm and pulled her toward the door.  When (she) refused to move, (the SRO) pushed her a few inches through the office doorway.  The appellate court reversed because “a constitutional violation does not occur every time an officer touches someone… Under the circumstances, we cannot say that such de minimis force was “clearly” excessive and unreasonable.  (The SRO) knew that the (social worker) was investigating potential child abuse and that it had instructed the school not to release the girl to the (parents’) custody.  (The mother) was visibly upset, demanded custody of her child, and refused to comply with (the SRO’s) instructions.  For the safety of everyone involved, (the SRO) removed (the mother) from the office.  Once (she) was outside, (the SRO) ceased all force.  We hold that the force used by (the SRO) was de minimis, and that (the mother) suffered no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court thus erred.”  Carter v. Dupuy

— In Florida,  the legislature enacted a law that expands the school guardian program to Florida colleges.  Under the provisions of House Bill 757 “teachers and staff will be able to carry weapons after training with the sheriff’s office. The law also requires annual security risk assessments at every campus to find safety flaws and make improvements.”

— In Oklahoma, the legislature has enacted House Bill 2979.  Called the “Talyn Bain Act,” the goal of the law is to improve safety for students “by establishing lower speed limits on certain highways near schools.”  The provisions of the law direct “the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) to create 45 mph school zones on portions of state highways upon request from a local jurisdiction, provided specific safety conditions are met. These include highways with speed limits of 65 mph or higher that run within 150 yards of a school and lack a direct exit ramp into the school zone.”

— In Texas, Senate Bill 546 has been enacted to improve school bus safety.  It’s provisions require “all public school buses to have three-point seat belts by 2029. Three-point seat belts include a shoulder belt and a lap belt, as opposed to a two-point belt, which only goes across the lap.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for April 17, 2026

by  • 

— In Texas, the United States District Court upheld school discipline against a student who “refused to surrender his cell phone to school personnel prior to taking the PSAT test, and (a student who) refused to surrender his phone to be placed (along with all his other classmates’ phones) in a blue pouch during the pendency of a teacher’s class.”  School policy “allows students to carry cell phones in school for safety purposes, (but) they are not to be used during testing.  Additionally, teachers are empowered to collect phones so that they do not disrupt class.  More importantly, students are instructed that they shall not fail to comply with directives given by school personnel.”  The students argued that schools “cannot regulate cell phone usage on its campus” because “the right to possess a cell phone is a sacrosanct right that supersedes all other provisions of the Code or other directives of an instructor.”  The court held that “there is no constitutional right to possess a cell phone in class.  Furthermore, to temporarily deprive a student of his cell phone during a class or a test and return it to them after the class or test is completed (or even at the conclusion of the school day) is not a constitutional violation.” Therefore the Court found that neither (student) has any legally cognizable claim regarding their respective cell phone scenarios.  Brown v. Splendora ISD

— In Kentucky, “the Kentucky Education Association (KEA) is urging all Kentucky school employees, both certified and classified, to share their experiences in a safety and student behavior survey.  Following the passage and signing into law of Senate Bill 101, landmark legislation aimed at addressing assaults against educators, the KEA wants every public school teacher and school employee in Kentucky to take part in a new, anonymous School Behavior Support survey, designed to capture real-world data on school safety and student behavior.

— In Minnesota, “Democrats in the Minnesota House of Representatives voted down GOP school safety legislation (HF 3493) that included additional funding, local options for school districts to create an anonymous threat reporting system, and would let schools suspend students for longer.”

— In Tennessee, “Knox County Schools is prohibiting the use of magnetic strips on classroom doors after a criminal trespassing incident at Hardin Valley campuses earlier this month.”  Officials say “individual classrooms have been using magnetic strips to allow students access in and out of classrooms during bathroom breaks.”  Going forward, “all district facilities are equipped with automatic door locks and all doors must remain locked during the instructional day.”